BBC hides anti-white Race Murder

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Can you give multiple recent examples of the BBC identifying the race of a white person when it's not shown that it was a race-motivated crime?

It's not an anti-white race murder. That's bull**** and hyperbolic considering we have no evidence as of now suggesting this.

We live in Europe, white people come from Europe. Saying 'they were white' is pretty meaningless in a country where 90% of people are white. When that British guy assaulted a Chinese woman a week or so ago, they obviously published his nationality, because he was not a typical Chinese person. If the attacker had been Chinese, they would have said 'man attacks woman'. That's not racism, that's just sensible journalism.

Also, four white guys come into a pub and murder a black guy, I'd be willing to bet that many people would assume that such a crime was racially motivated.

(Original post by Callum828)
Also, four white guys come into a pub and murder a black guy, I'd be willing to bet that many people would assume that such a crime was racially motivated.

Probably because it's statistically unlikely in a country where less than 2% are black and news reports already showing racist attacks. People tend to form opinions without full details so when that's all we have to go on, it being a racist attack is a okay conclusion to come to.

Obviously a better thing to do would be to not form opinions without full details but hey you just have to look at OP's post and most of the replies in this thread to see that's too optimistic to hope people to do.

(Original post by alexmagpie)
Can we not just respect the victims and let them rest in peace, rather than warping things to fit whichever political agenda? I can't see any evidence suggesting it was a racially motivated killing.

I disagree with your perfectly reasonable assessment of the evidence and empathetic reaction to this crime, but being an ignorant bigot and lacking the capacity to express this with words. Consequently I am going to neg rep you. Yeah, take that!

(Original post by TheHansa)
No of course not, but I was saying that this isn't anti-white bias because other crime is not covered just the governments voice trying its best to stop a total meltdown. During the riots when three Asians were killed in a racist attack there was a scramble to the keep the lid on things and stop race riots.

(Original post by Callum828)
It's more the implication, in the BBC story, that this is just typical working class football violence, rather than a directed attack on an individual by a (black) gang. I mean; 'it got a bit rowdy' is not comparable to 'four men came in with knives and bats, dragged him outside and murdered him and his father' which is what actually happened.

Well, that's right. I think the Beeb definitely tend to amplify and downplay certain aspects depending on whether it fits their narrative.

(Original post by x_Natalie_x)
I think the people who are saying that they were right to leave race out are missing the point. The OP makes the - absolutely true - point that if the races were the other way around, they would definitely have been mentioned in the BBC article, and the police would probably be investigating this as a hate crime. The problem here is the obvious double standard. If you are going to report white-on-black violence as is, you need to do the same for black-on-white.

Indeed, it's the double standard that is the issue. I understand there are National Union of Journalist guidelines that actually try to downplay ethnicity - unless of course it involves european perpetrators.

There's too many double standards with race in general. The BBC have a duty of not reporting these incidents as PC firmly keeps them in-check. They smokescreen these types of crimes for 'community cohesion'. If they're seen to be mentioning the aggressors race, they'll be called racist most likely. So most journalists prefer to avoid it.

(Original post by aqquaintance_sport)
There's too many double standards with race in general. The BBC have a duty of not reporting these incidents as PC firmly keeps them in-check. They smokescreen these types of crimes for 'community cohesion'. If they're seen to be mentioning the aggressors race, they'll be called racist most likely. So most journalists prefer to avoid it.

(Original post by TheHansa)
The BBC screens out lots of stuff, not just anti-white crime, the purpose is to maintain social order not create a narrative of whites being evil and everyone else the victim.

Yup, same with the lack of coverage of the Kriss Donald case. This kind of spineless pandering and lack of integrity makes me sick. Thinking that things will fan flames is no excuse whatsoever for telling us the truth about white on black crime, but not black on white. We deserve a right to know.

(Original post by Callum828)
We live in Europe, white people come from Europe. Saying 'they were white' is pretty meaningless in a country where 90% of people are white. When that British guy assaulted a Chinese woman a week or so ago, they obviously published his nationality, because he was not a typical Chinese person. If the attacker had been Chinese, they would have said 'man attacks woman'. That's not racism, that's just sensible journalism.

Also, four white guys come into a pub and murder a black guy, I'd be willing to bet that many people would assume that such a crime was racially motivated.

Yeah but this is London, it's own entity, and London is certainly not 90% white, it's probably more like 50/50 or minority white.